Applicant S275-02 v MIMA S275/2001 [2002] HCATrans 459 (17 September 2002)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S275 of 2001

B e t w e e n -

APPLICANT S275/2001

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GLEESON CJ

GAUDRON J

CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON TUESDAY, 17 SEPTEMBER 2002, AT 3.17 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

APPLICANT S275/2001 appeared in person.

MR S.B. LLOYD: May it please the Court, I appear for the respondent. (instructed by Clayton Utz)

GLEESON CJ: Yes, go ahead.

APPLICANT S275/2001: I have applied for the refugee from my country as I overstayed the visa in Australia. I went to RRT and I also went to Federal Court and Full Federal but I was been refused. I do not think so, the reason they gave me was really good for refusing my case and I just want to have some justice, you know, because I am only 19 years old and I think I can do much more better being in Australia than back in Fiji. It is just like I do not have nothing back in Fiji and, like, I have given some reasons in the book about the reason I want to stay in Australia. So I really will appreciate it if you could do something for me.

GAUDRON J: Perhaps you do not understand the legal system, but all we can do is check to see whether the Federal Court failed to find what is called reviewable error in the Tribunal's decision. You have to point to an error in the decision of a kind that entitles you to relief from a court.

APPLICANT S275/2001: In last case of mine was in Federal Court and they refused for reason saying that my case was not a very good one and I think that is not true. I have given all the evidence of being bases of everything, all the cases that I had and I gave to the court last time.

GAUDRON J: Yes, but you have to establish some error on the part of the Refugee Review Tribunal of a kind that would entitle the Court to intervene and it is not a good enough - the Court cannot intervene simply because the Tribunal does not believe that you are at risk of persecution. That seems to be your difficulty, is it not, the Refugee Review Tribunal thought you could go back and live in Fiji, at least in Suva, without any harm coming to you? Is that not right?

APPLICANT S275/2001: Yes, that is right.

GLEESON CJ: The Refugee Review Tribunal did not have the task of deciding whether you would be better off in Australia or Fiji. The Refugee Review Tribunal had the task of deciding whether you would be persecuted if you went back to Fiji, which is a different question.

APPLICANT S275/2001: That is right.

GLEESON CJ: Yes.

APPLICANT S275/2001: If I go back to Fiji, I have written in the book saying that I will have some of the special cases in there like about the family matters and stuff like that and I want just a review on that.

GLEESON CJ: All right, thank you. Is that all you wanted to put to us?

APPLICANT S275/2001: Yes, thanks.

GLEESON CJ: In view of the fact that the applicant is unrepresented, we have not only considered her written submissions and her oral argument but we have given our own careful consideration to the reasons of the Refugee Review Tribunal and we are of the view that those reasons disclose no reviewable error. The application for special leave to appeal is refused.

Is there an application for costs?

MR LLOYD: Yes, there is, your Honour.

GLEESON CJ: With costs. Thank you.

AT 3.22 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED